( ESNUG 220 Item 4 ) ---------------------------------------------- [7/7/95]
Subject: (ESNUG 214 #5 215 #5 217 #4) Specific Reasons Why Synopsys Sucks!
Michael M.Y. Hui wrote:
>It is not difficult for a logic designer to learn how to write high quality
>synthesizable code. But it is very hard for even a computer science M.Sc.
>w/ ample E.E. CAD tool exposure to learn how to use Design Compiler
>properly! The fault is in the inflexable design database, unclear commands,
>apparently random (Bill Gates' famous phrase) naming of options &
>attributes, overly complex component library system, and of course, bugs
>galore. However, let's not bite the hand too harshly that feeds some of us.
> 1. Synopsys has large market share.
> 2. Design Compiler is very hard to use.
> 3. Synopsys Gurus are rare, and they command high salary.
From: bodack@sican.de (Ruediger Bodack)
I do agree to the first point, also to the second, but I think this is a
result of a complicated topic. Compared to schematic entry it is real
fun to learn several compiler instructions. I don't think, there are to
many unclear commands. There are just a lot of them, but only to meet
everybody's different problems. At our company young guys use Design
Compiler after 4 weeks learning it. I'd like to add:
4. Synopsys has a very efficient online help.
5. The hotline in Germany is really helpful.
6. Synopsys has a lot of software bugs but is has a very short
feedback in correcting them. Have you ever reported a bug in your
MSWindows-system and have you seen the correction of it in the next
version?
7. Synopsys has a very good combination of command-line and graphical
user interface. Theres no large framework that does obscure things
in thousands of files and windows.
But, if all tools of Synopsys are going to look like the Windows stuff, like
the Library Compiler, I'll cancel my job and become a farmer.
- Ruediger Bodack
SICAN GmbH, Germany
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
From: greg@cqt.com (Greg Bell)
Concerning the randon naming, I couldn't disagree more. I can't tell you how
many times I've guessed at the name of a variable or command and gotten it
right because of naming consistency. The variable auto_link_disable tells me
exactly what it does. It *could* have been named al_disabl.
Not only that, but the *extensive* help almost never leaves you stranded.
How many tools allow you to do things like 'help HDL-103' to get an extended
description of why its unhappy along with instructions for what to try next?
In fact, just as a test, I just tried to read in a non-existent file:
design_combobulator>read -f vhdl none.vhd
Error: Cannot read file 'none.vhd'. (UID-58)
{}
Now, just in case that's not enough information, I could do:
design_combobulator>help UID-58
Command Reference N. Messages messages
NAME
UID-58 (error) Cannot read file '%s'.
DESCRIPTION
This error is generated when you try to read a file
which is protected or does not exist.
WHAT NEXT
Check and correct search_path, then reinvoke the read command.
V3.2 Synopsys Inc. 1988-1995. All rights reserved. n-1
Now c'mon! How much more friendly can you GET? Most of what I know about
Design Compiler I learned through the help, and the rest I learned from
the on-line manuals (the *complete* set is online, along with a master
index, and a full text query search feature). Everyone here thinks I'm
the local Synopsys guru because I can come fix it when they have a problem,
but the first thing I always type is 'help <ERROR ID>' and just read!
Add to that the flexibility in syntax like:
find (port, "*") or find port, "*" or find port "*"
Now I will side with you about the bugs. I wish software companies would
concentrate on quality instead of packing more and more features (past a
certain point). Right now, Synopsys is very functional, feature-wise, and
it would be great if they would release a version whose selling point was
"It's rock solid!". That's not what sells products, so its partly the
consumer's fault. Its the same reason some popular Windows based apps keep
getting fatter and slower and more buggy... features sell and get magazine
write-ups, quality (ie. lack of bugs) is harder to recognize, almost
impossible to quantify, and not as "sexy" as things like ChartWizards.
Concerning Design Compiler being hard to use, I say: Not necessarily. You
can do basic synthesis quite easily. Read file in, include a simple baseline
constraints file, compile, save file out. I've seen engineers up and running
in a half hour. I complain about crappy software as much as the next guy,
and I've never been one to kiss butt when a product sucks, but Design
Compiler, with its imperfections, doesn't fall into that category.
- Greg Bell
CommQuest Technologies, Inc.
|
|
